<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (2) TMI 2016 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292371</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the transaction genuine, considering the assessee&#039;s substantial evidence and the group&#039;s overall potential influencing investment decisions. The AO failed to prove the transaction was sham, leading to the favorable outcome for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:51:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 2016 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292371</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the transaction genuine, considering the assessee&#039;s substantial evidence and the group&#039;s overall potential influencing investment decisions. The AO failed to prove the transaction was sham, leading to the favorable outcome for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>